MovieReview

Darke Reviews | Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)

Posted by

0

This is one of the more recent films I am reviewing this month and was unfortunately only a direct to DVD release. Even with that it wasn’t advertised and hard to hear about if you don’t peruse movie insider sites. I happened to come across this one back in 2007 when Superman Returns was still in the popular conciousness and Brandon Routh was cast as the title character. It as also based on an Italian comic series which makes it one of the rare Horror comic adaptations.

There’s not much to say about director Kevin Munroe, who has mostly done video game work and the 2007 CGI Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie; which will still likely be better than what Bay makes. For a rank amateur in the scheme of things he shows a surprising sense and appreciation of 1930’s and 40’s Noir films. He captured that pulp feel that came with the Private Dick character type and executed it better than most directors who have tried it. Rian Johnson’s “Brick” being one of the few exceptions.

The writing deserves some credit as well, a two writing team who tend to work together on other projects as well. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer, also responsible for A Sound of Thunder and the new Conan movie; with rumored work on Doctor Strange coming. While the dialogue and scenes aligned in the script are not particularly inventive, they don’t have to be to be entertaining. They found a way to blend humor, pulp and horror into a single film and do it well. The abomination that was RIPD this summer needed to use Dylan Dog as a basis. It may not have been an abyssmally horrific film had they even watched DD.

The story moves around a Private Investigator named Dylan Dog (Routh), a human who was once a mediator and policeman for the supernatural creatures of New Orleans. He gave up the game and became a normal P.I. His time away could not last as his assistant Marcus (Sam Huntington – Fanboys, Being Human (U.S.)) gets him into a case trying to solve the murder of the father of beautiful Elizabeth (Anita Briem – The Tudors). He finds himself thrust into the world once more and is forced to confront the monsters of his past, both literal and figurative. The vampires of New Orleans are lead by Vargas (Taye Diggs – Chicago, Private Practice) while the Werewolves are lead by Gabriel (Peter Stormare – a lot!). Can he uncover the mystery of the killer and solve the case and maybe save the world of monsters & men.

Routh is an absolute natural in the film who comes across as a man who truly was part of the supernatural world for many years. He handles every situation with a kind of Laissez-faire or Blase attitude while those around him, especially Huntington, react the way normal people do. Even the delivery of his voice over lines that add to the pulpy detective feel show a keen attention to the nature of the role. He almost seems to channel Bogarts style of “I’ve seen it all” as he goes through the investigation. Even his questioning of Digg’s Vargas, may read as flat to others, but is spot on for the character he is playing. I really think he deserves more work than he gets and that he has a fine sense of timing that is under rated. I also can’t deny seeing him topless a few times isn’t bad on the eyes.

The rest of the cast is fine as well with Huntington providing a humorous counter balance to the dry wit of Routh. Stormare as always is just damn entertaining to watch, his Lucifer in COnstantine is amazing, but he sadly does not get enough screen time. Diggs is a beautiful man and just seems to relish in every aspect of the role he is given. Briem perhaps is one of the flatest performances in the film, but they can’t all be perfect.

As far as the effects and other technicals such as Make up the film does the subjects justice. The weakest effect is the final creature where they depended on CG for a transformation. The rest of the film has some pretty solid Make up work and practical effects. Once again this proves practical is greater than digital when possible.

For the TL;DR crew….

I highly recommend this noir story. It is suitable for people who are squeamish about their horror and has just enough monsters and mystery for everyone else. The movie is not nearly well known enough and I found it rather entertaining.

Thats the key here, it is entertaining. So check out Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, I think you might be a fan.
Tomorrow’s review will warn you to stay off the moors (this is an easy hint!)

Darke Reviews | The Wraith (1986)

Posted by

0

This one should be a personal favourite for my Tucson readers as the entirety of the film was shot here locally back in 1985 for it’s 86 release date. While watching the movie I spent half my time trying to identify the roads, intersections and buildings. Only a handful are left as they were when it was shot. Sorry to say folks, the Big Kay Burger is no more.

This is another one of those films where the writer and director are the same and it’s one of their first works. It unfortunately shows in Mike Marvins end results on this one. The movie is a clear product of the mid 80’s where it really doesn’t know what it wants to be musically, effects wise, story, acting. It sits on that cusp of early 80s bad and late 80s bad. It is in a wave of movies that want to be scary, want to be “Rad”, but also have an almost original concept.

The story focuses around a street gang who rules their town through fear and violence. They pull people over in the middle of the night and race them for their cars or their lives. Along comes a new kid in town by the name of Jake (Charlie Sheen), who instantly gets himself on the bad side of the gang leader Packard (Nick Cassavetes) by being nice to the girl he is scarily obsessed over, Keri (Sherilyn Fenn). Jake vanishes for the better part of the first half of the film after that. We also meet local burger flipper Billy (Matthew Barry), who is just a nice guy that lost his brother a couple of years ago. Also new in town is a mysterious street racer in an unusual black car and wears a full body suit and biker helmet; no not Racer X. He begins to race Packards gang one by one, leaving eyeless corpses in his wake. His tactic for beating them, get a head of them on the roads and let them T-bone his car and explode. Meanwhile the local sheriff Loomis (Randy Quaid) tries to keep the peace in a town that wants to unravel as Packards gang begins to die off. As the movie unfolds we find the connection between Keri, Jake, Packard and the mysterious driver.

So let’s get down to it, the acting isn’t stellar. It all reads as awkward with the exception of Quaid and Sheen who are able to make it look effortless. The words character development were never uttered during the making of this film. We also have such stellar names as Rughead, Gutterboy and Skank. It’s the 80’s so we do get an obligatory and completely unneeded naked girl / sex scene. Not even a very good one.

On the technicals, the sound mixing and ADR (Additional Dialogue Recording) are off a bit. The Gun effects are fairly horrific for the guns being used, but you don’t watch this movie for the guns. You watch it, like Fast and Furious, for the cars and the races. By todays standards, or the standards of movies that have a budget they aren’t much to look at with the same shots being looped over and over. The odd thing is if you don’t know the area they don’t “look” looped. As an example, the 4th avenue underpass is not THAT long, but they cut in such a way it could be if you didn’t know. As I said before , Tucson locals will recognize places like the Boneyard, Catalina Highway, 5th avenue and Sabino Canyon. The cars are cool and I can only imagine the fun of driving down some of the roads at those speeds – something I imagine Pima County Sheriff hated after this movie.
Ok so TL;DR

There is absolutely no way I can say this is a good movie. I have a bit of love for it though as it was a fav for me as a kid. It’s still fun to watch now with some popcorn and a soda and just enjoy it for the raw camp.

If you are a fan of 80’s schlock and camp and/or a Tucson local, give this one a watch.

Tomorrow’s review knows what happens if you pull the hammer back to soon.

Darke Reviews | The Lost Boys (1987)

Posted by

1

This is a movie that opens with the perfect musical beats of The Sisters of Mercy’s Cry Little Sister and then leads into the Doors being covered by Echo & the Bunnymen “People are strange”. Few other films both capture their era so elegantly, so perfectly and tell you everything you need to know about the film you are going to watch. This movie came out in 1987 and every single aspect of it shows it from hair, to fashion, to music, to dialogue, to effects.

Welcome to Santa Carla, welcome to the Lost Boys. This review will absolutely focus on the first of the three movies; yes there are three. I have watched all three and as a warning to the generations yet to come I will not review them (this month). This is probably one of the last of the vampire genre of the 80’s and mainstream horror vampires we get for years to come. I want to make it clear, this is not the last vampire movie of the 80s and not the last mainstream vamp, but it is one of the last that is both Mainstream and actually HORROR. Is it particularly scary by modern sensibilities? No, but this isn’t a dramatic piece and it’s certainly not a romance. While it only grossed $32 million in 1987, that puts it higher than most horror movies in todays market with an adjusted gross of about $65 million. Despite what we consider low numbers, this is also a box office success when you consider it was made for about $8.5 million.

Now as I move to talk about the director, I usually indicate that friends don’t let friends watch Joel Schumacher movies. This is the man who gave us Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. When you’re done vomitting I will be here. While he does have a good decision here or there in his career; for the most part he is a train wreck. Lost Boys is one of his good decisions, in which he looked at a script that called for Goonies aged vampires and the Frog Brothers to be chubby scouts and went – “nah, lets make them teens and sexier.” Best decision ever as it’s created one of the most iconic and influential vampire films of the modern era. I’d talk more about the writers Janice Fischer and James Jermias, but they quite literally did nothing after or before it. The movie does have a third writer which by normal rules is a death knell , but somehow in this film it’s an improvement. If I had to guess he was brought in by Richard Donner (the producer who almost directed) to brush up and mature the script. The third writer is Jeffrey Boam, who is credited for Lethal Weapons 2 and 3, Indiana JOnes and the Last Crusade, Innerspace and as the creator of Brisco County Jr. Fascinating individual and one I would bet brought most of the sarcasm and charm to the script created by the other two.

The movie centers around Michael (Jason Patric), his brother Sam (Corey Haim) and mother Lucy (Dianne Weist) recently imported from Phoenix to Santa Carla California. An improvement I’d say. Michael in his quest to get laid (it’s not stated but watch, its what happened) encounters Starr (Jami Gertz) a hot young brunette who has a penchant for tank tops. She is also part of a local gang of toughs lead by David (Keifer Sutherland). As the gang brings Michael into the fold he finds out they are vampires. His little brother Sam, encounters the mysterious and strange Frog Brothers Edgar (Corey Feldman) and Alan (Jamison Newlander), who work in their parents comic shop and believe they hunt the supernatural. A third plot line is surprisingly successfully interwoven with Lucy meeting a charming man, and employer, by the name of Max (Edward Hermann). As the movie counts down to its gruesome conclusion the plot threads collide in like a head on collision. Along the way we are treated to some of the lovely music of the 80’s and the introduction to one of the most gothic songs to be released, Cry Little Sister.

When it comes to acting, the movie is generally lacking. It borders on camp at times from the levels of bad some of the characters hit. I blame part of that on the script. 20 year old Gertz is fresh from the bomb Solar Babies, yes that’s an actual title and still is very rough around the edges. This is the first movie with the two Coreys together but it’s clear they actually have a natural charisma together; even though the characters are young, stupid and insane – much like the Coreys themselves I suppose. Sutherland and his vampire crew which includes future Bill S Preston Esquire (Alex Winter) are mostly there to look ridiculous in that 80s biker goth way and chew scenery; which they do with wild abandon.

The effects are all practical, and I thank whatever dark god decided that, through the movie and surprisingly most of them hold up. I think that lays solely on the talents of an Oscar winning make up team including Face/Off judge Ve Neill.

As it pertains to the vampire mythos, it doesn’t add a whole heck of a lot other than character and flavor. It shows a new younger, edgier breed of vampire that we really had not gotten to see before. Gone were the cloaks and bad accents; in were trench coats and bad haircuts. It does hold a few element true from common myths, such as sunlight, staking, garlic, invitations etc. It also gave us the Buffy Brow that became the standard for vampires everywhere after.

TL;DR

The Lost Boys is a must see for any fan of the genre. If you are young enough to have never seen it – do so. While I was sad to never see its true continuation the Lost Girls, this one stands apart in the vampire genre and holds it’s own even now.

Tomorrow’s review wants to let you know if you lose the race you lose your car!

Darke Reviews | The Craft (1996)

Posted by

2

Once again we go to the way back machine, moving to 17 lovely years ago. This movie made my own belief system mainstream as I had been practicing for years. Granted I had never seen anything like what they pulled off, nor is it possible but hey a girl can dream about changing her hair colour by will alone. Would save so much on product!! I do remember convincing most of my drama club a few years before to try Light as a Feather Stiff as a board and alas we did not have the same success – go figure. The movie of course is The Craft, with one of the more successful mainstream witch movies ever released – that has actual witches in it. I find an interesting challenge to get into the details of this film as many of the cast and technicals have long since vanished into obscurity, but here we go.

The director is Andrew Fleming, who has had only a handful of directorial projects since; such as Hamlet 2 and a handful of TV show episodes. I will say that there are some performances he coaxes out of his actors in the film that are fascinating if not somewhat disturbing.

Fleming of course is given a script, that he has a credit on, by Peter Filardi, who has also vanished from the film making world. He did however provide us the Brat Pack hit Flatliners and the woefully underrated (and more faithful) remake of Salems Lot. He has a clear love of the horror genre which makes some of his decisions in this films writing curious at best. While much of the dialogue and scenes work there are more than a few moments that if you stop and think about for even a moment give you significant pause and questioning of motivation and character understanding.

The story focuses on Sarah (Robin Tunney – Empire Records, The Mentalist) a girl moving to LA with her father and step mother to start a new life for reasons we never have, or need, explained. She finds and quickly befriends three outcasts at the school who are rumored to be witches – Nancy (Fairuza Balk – The Waterboy, Return to Oz), Bonnie (Neve Campbell – Scream series, Party of 5), and Rochelle (Rachel True). It turns out the rumors are true and with the very presence of Sarah they are finally able to work “real magic”. As they explore their new found powers some of the girls lose their way while Sarah just begins to lose herself. The end result is a fascinating climax as the meek Sarah becomes something new by facing her own fears and demons.

While watching the film tonight, there was interesting conversation about how Skeet Ulrich’s Chris is actually scarier than the finale’s half crazed Nancy. I am inclined to agree. While Nancy herself has clearly lost it, there’s something naturally predatory about Chris that was always there. He’s a real monster that exists beyond the silver screen and to me and my friend that makes him truly scary. Balk’s Nancy has an interesting arc, possibly the most complete one in the film, as she goes from an angry lost soul to a girl who finds something to cling to and people to cling to that in the end simply becomes lost in her own rage. For those familiar with Mage the Ascension, this is a perfect Nephandi arc. You can actually watch her change from someone who clearly is pained by what happens to her friends and whom’s very life is pain to a broken killer. It’s safe to say Balk’s performance is the most memorable in its broken insanity and transition.

Sarah’s arc is a little less obvious where the only thing she finds is her own confidence. Honestly, with a few exceptions of emotions and scenes Tunney’s performance is about as flat as any of Kristen Stewarts. She delivers her lines with a lack of passion that’s disappointing most of the time, but unlike Stewart emotes enough to show she understands the implications of the scene. As a bit of trivia, the entire movie she wears as a wig as she had just completed Empire Records where she shaved her head.

Bonnie and Rochelle are a problem for me. While aspects of their performances are very solid; Campbell’s pulling in on herself prior to the magic and then new confidence after and True’s regret at the pain she causes another, they are also missing something. During one scene Sarah calls them out on behaviors that are changing and when the girls turn on Sarah its very sudden. There was not enough build up or interaction shown to help me understand why they changed so much so quickly. Nancy (Balk) sure, but the other two seem completely off in how their behaviors change towards Sarah. Even through to the very end they are off and make no sense. Each performance is good and believable but they just are so wildly juxtaposed to what you see on screen it is difficult to put together.

The technical aspects of this movie are well done for 1996. Only one or two are particularly weak (hair color) while others are so nicely done you almost done notice them (Mirror effect w/ Rochelle). It’s worth mentioning the beach sequence during the ritual is lacking in some of the effects as nature decided to provide her own. That area of beach is known for being paranaturally active and it from a superstition standpoint seemed to be aware of the nature of the film. The tide you see coming in around the circle was real and concerning for the cast and crew; as was the wind and sudden storms that kept happening. As another technical aspect, the character of Lirio is played by real life witch Assumpta Serna who was the consultant for the movie that kept it at least somewhat respectful of elements to the craft.

I feel the need to point out that this movie came out in 1996 – with an uncredited appearance by Holly Marie Combs. Don’t know her? 2 years later she starred in an 8 season long show called Charmed. Why do I bring this up? Because when Charmed came out it featured an introduction that is the same as the Craft with a flying through clouds, blue skies, the same font AND a song from the movie The Craft as it’s theme song (Morriseys How Soon is Now performed by Love Spit Love). Now I’m not saying the makers of Charmed entirely ripped off the Craft, but…

TL;DR time?

The Craft 17 years later is still an entertaining movie. While closer to the horror genre than other witch movies of late, it is still firmly in the Young Adult realm. It’s quite watchable and a proud part of my collection.

I do have to recommend this movie for anyone who needs a witch fix.
Tomorrow’s review wonders how the maggots are.

Darke Reviews | Interview with a Vampire (1994)

Posted by

1

As I write this review I reflect on the imagery and dialogue choices within the film, how they talk about the two lives – one before and one after. This is of particular note to me as the year I was born was the year the original novel by Anne Rice was released. As with most children the year they graduate high school is the year their new, second life begins; and that is the year that the film was released the oh so lovely 1994. This movie changed the face of modern vampire films as much as Dracula did back in 1931. It goes in waves, we are delivered the monstrous vampire (Nosferatu) then the romantic bloodsucker as Lugosi did. The 80s and early nineties vampire films were a turn from the 70s sexploitation and had become the rebellious monster (Lost Boys). We once again as a lover of the things with fangs, yearned to be seduced again, yearned to be romanced.

Along comes Interview with a Vampire.

The screenplay for the film was written by Anne Rice herself, so any changes to the story she had written eighteen years before can be forgiven as she had evolved as a writer over those years and had fallen in love with her personal demon Lestat. This is the story of Louis, a southern plantation owner begging for death. Death comes in the form of Lestate deLioncourt, who gleefully offers him death or…something more. The film centers around Louis coming to terms with his own existence and what it means to be a vampire. The introduction of a vampiric daughter, Claudia, the betrayal of his own dark father, his journey to find more of his kind are highlights of a rather large scale story told in a personal way. Louis pain reaches new heights as he finally comes to term with his own vampirism but that awareness has such sweet suffering. All of it based around the concept that he is giving the story to a small time journalist and this is the biography he has wanted to get off of his chest.

The director Neil Jordan, best known for The Crying Game, could probably call this his masterpiece. Nearly every decision made and performance reached is on him. The movie is staggering in the amount of sheer gothic visual imagery it contains. Even the musical cues are powerful throughout. The key performances are nuanced and executed well, which falls on a director as much as any actor. It also proves that yes, with the right director a child actor can perform to the caliber of her adult co stars. Please take note M. Night Shamalama-ding-dong.

Lets talk about the actors a bit. When first announced, as a fan of the books, I was incensed at the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat. Anne Rice herself was less than pleased. When I saw the movie however, he did play one facet of the magnificent bastard that Lestat is. He played it well. I think Townsends’ Lestat is better, but Cruise did a remarkable job. The role of Lestat was a huge departure from his usual A list roles and mainstream films. Others still pan him to this day, but the reality is he did a really good job at playing the Lestat as written in the novel on screen.

Brat Pitt (no I am not going to list his credits, if you dont know who he is, check your pulse), plays our main character Louis. Lets be fair, I don’t like Louis as a vampire or a human. I suppose thats what makes Pitts performance so outstanding is that he at least can make you put up with him for two hours. He covers the range of emotions well, but more importantly understands the changes happening to Louis as the decades become centuries. There is a subtle, but noticable shift in the character that Pitt executes on perfectly.

Both Pitt and Cruise however are upstaged by fledgling actress and twelve year old Kristen Dunst. She played the aforementioned dark daughter Claudia. She is a very naughty girl. she actually seems to force both actors to elevate their own performance. She handles the lines she is given and the physical cues she must perform like someone twice her age, if not three times her age. while if you look at her actual age to the age of the actors she plays against some of those dialogues and motions are far more uncomfortable. When you examine the fact that she is playing a fourty year old in the body of a twelve year old it really shows the ability of the actress and makes the scenes that much more powerful.

From a technical standpoint the film is again nearly flawless. The CGI minimal and what there is of it is difficult to notice in all but a handful of shots. The make up work is amazing and holds up twenty years later. The sets, costuming and lighting were spot on through out the film.

This isnt to say its a perfect film. There are some casting choices that bother me to this day even more than Cruise did at the time. Such as the casting of Antonio Banderas as a cherub faced red head with curls named Armand. I will leave you with that character to actor description for a bit. The technicalities of Claudia’s fate defy astronomy as they could only occur a few days a year.

For the TL;DR crowd

It is one of the best vampire films ever made; while it leans more to the dramatic than the horrific it is an honest vampire movie. It isn’t flawless but it is close. It’s drama however does tend to limit it’s rewatch value to a once a year kinda deal. The performances are amazing and that alone is a reason to watch. Again any changes from the source are tacitly approved by the author, which while not always a good thing, needs to be kept in mind for those who would compare novel to screen.

Interview with a Vampire is a must see for anyone at least once.

Tomorrow’s review doesn’t want to end up like Nancy

Darke Reviews | Carrie – Old (1976) vs New (2013)

Posted by

0

 

I had been waiting to watch this movie for a little over a year from the time I heard Chloe Grace Moretz would be playing the title role. Now since I began an old vs new review schtick recently I thought it just to do an OvN for Carrie – 1976 vs 2013. For fairly obvious reasons I had not seen the original when it came out, I was four days old; however I have watched it several times since and watched it again tonight so I could accurately compare it to the one I saw late last night. How do they compare? How does the new stand up to the classic Oscar nominated film? Lets break it down and much like last time I will use years to specify. This review WILL contain spoilers due to the fact its a remake!

Directing –

Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry, Stop-Loss) brings a certain modernization to the new film, that was needed to tell the story for a modern audience. The performances she coaxes out of her cast and decisions made reflect a profound respect for Brian DePalma’s(Untouchables, Scarface) 1976 adaptation of Kings novel. She brings to 2013 a vast majority of the scenes and shots that dePalma did way back when. She is also wise enough to change it when needed and make her own choices that elevate the movie in many areas but hurt it in others. It’s hard to criticize dePalma’s work because of the classic nature of it, however there are a few things that he cut that Pierce didn’t. Other decisions that he made, such as using a full-powered hose and busting out PJ Soles eardrums during prom – not good. In a true match up 2013 uses more of the original script than 1976, but the overall performances and shots these directors chose are indicitive of their times and experience.

Lets talk script.

This is of course based on the Steven King novel of the same name released in 1974. It was the first of his stories to be adapted to film, the 1976 was adapted for the screen by Lawrence D Cohen. Cohen also adapted other works by King, such as It, Tommy Knockers, Nightmares and Dreamscapes and has a credit on the new film as well. 2013 has a writing credit also given to Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who has Glee to his credit. That’s it. I can’t really say what Roberto added as most of the 2013 movie is nearly line for line from the 1976. Obviously a few things have changed to bring it current, a beat here or there is altered but based on the overall story presented the 2013 IS the 1976 as it was intended to be.

The story

For the few of you who don’t know it, it’s that of Carrie White a homely teenage girl who is picked on and abused from all sides without sanctum or sanity. Most of the students and even a few teachers bully and torment her there, only for her to return home to a mother who is in short – an insane Christian fundamentalist. The poor girl has her first period in the showers in the school gym, surrounded by unforgiving classmates who throw feminine products at her chanting cruel things. Saved only by a teacher Ms Dejardin. During her outburst her telekinetic powers begin to manifest. The rest of the film is an exploration of her growth into her own identity while those around her would destroy her. She has few allies through it all, none who are actually saying anything to her directly. The story culminates with a Prom, Pigs Blood and Pain.
Acting/Performances

Sissy Spacek in 1976 achieved what almost no horror movie actress has in their role, an Academy award nomination. She had a look to the character which fits her nature. She is unassuming, forgettable, the classic wall flower. She never makes eye contact, she looks shrunken in on her own sense of self. She begins to find herself and sense of self as she studies her powers and is invited to prom. The transition for her is interesting and perhaps more subtle than Chloe’s in the 2013. Chloe is hands down the best thing of the new film, but also the worst. Spacek wasn’t pretty (by my standards) so when she performed Carrie it worked on a very specific level. Chloe cannot help but be pretty even when she tries not to be. I suppose though that it adds to the level of her performance as she expertly pulls off every other aspect of what it means to be Carrie. Her transition from girl, to woman, to monster is fascinating to behold. You are with her when she feels joy for the first time in her life. As she stands up to her mother and then when it finally comes burning down.

Before we talk about the other characters we need to discuss the differences between the breakdowns. Spacek goes to bye bye land. She is no longer home and no longer connected to reality when her eyes bulge and vengeance reigns. She is indiscriminate ending her foes and even her friends who she unable to comprehend anymore. Her walk home is that of a lost creature finding its natural habitat. Our 2013 Carrie is different. She’s decided to stop being prey and become a predator. She may have lost touch with reality on a different scale, but more importantly she lost touch with her morality as she deliberately targets her enemies and saves her one friend in the room. It’s important to note she actively does save a life. The rest, the rest just burn as she stalks her way home inflicting righteous suffering. There is actual bliss on her face as some of her enemies die. I think both performances are perfect in this aspect as both show the genie in the bottle being let out in different ways. I think, as a victim of bullying for 7 years of school, I prefer 2013 but that’s taste.

Supporting Cast

Margaret White, played by Piper Laurie in 1976 was a force of nature. She was down right insane and uncomfortable to be around and played perfectly by Laurie, which I believe also got her an Academy nod. Julianne Moore, in 2013, on the other hand is a different force of nature. She’s just as insane, but screams less and has a different level of uncomfortableness to her. You watch her self mutilate and have no touch with reality. Her speech to Carrie before the end of her conception is different in the 2013 and I think better for it’s lack of filth.

The Aggressors

I don’t need to go into too much detail here. They are vile in both films and deserve all that comes with it. The modern twist of filming the shower sequence and posting it online brings it home for the recent cases of cyberbullying and the effects of it. The 1976 cast included more names that had small careers in the 70s and early 80s and some grew into bigger ones. Some guy named John Travolta for example. I don’t think the new cast has such luck as none of them save Sue (below) had any real screen presence

The supporters

Sue Snell, Tommy Ross and Ms Dejardin. Much like I have said with others these characters are iconic to their times. They reflect it perfectly and also much like the aggressors the 1976 cast went on to bigger and better (William Katt and Amy Irving) and the 2013 cast will likely not with the exception of Sue, she might have something. She has a beauty that the camera loves and a bit of charisma that with the right directors could grow into actual acting. I found that the 2013 Dejardin was a little more empathetic to Carrie and showed her frustration with the school a little better.
Effects & Technical

While the fire sequences, lighting, film quality and camera work is better in the 2013 film I think much of that is a product of Hollywood evolution. The crucifixion in 2013 however took me right out of it as the CG was so painfully evident and when compared to the more practical looking flying knives from 76 just didn’t work. I will however defend the end of the film for its choice in the destruction of the house. It was in the original 76 to be done the same way and they couldn’t make it work and by 2013 they did. The same with the death sequences during the retribution, some of them just look better now, but again this is evolution not intent.
TL;DR (I know this was long)

This one is a flat out tie. Because the film plays so faithfully to the original, even going so far as to include several scenes the original cut I can’t say they are different films. They are the same movie filmed 37 years apart. If anything it’s a study in film making now and then.

What I can say is watching the new one, which I do recommend for those so inclined, I felt anticipation growing in my chest as the prom arrived and I was waiting for the bucket. That’s something few movies have done and its something to give credit for. I may add some comments below that are more about elements to the 2013 than a true comparison.

Overall – Both movies are incredibly successful in the translation of Kings story and are faithful to each other. I have to recommend the new one if you love the old. Appreciate all that they did in the making of when we live in an age where we wince at bad decisions in remakes.
Tomorrows review never stops with the whining, but will give you a choice it never had.

Darke Reviews | Monster Squad (1987)

Posted by

2

In the year I turned 11 I do not think there was a movie I watched more or that helped shape some of what was to come for me later in my love of monsters. A film that was a child of the 80s introduction to the wonders that were the great Universal Monsters in all their beautiful campy glory in a way only that the celluloid of the 80s can. It also taught me about the holocaust at a young age. The movie is ostensibly for children and young teens though watching it with the eyes of someone who is supposed to be an adult I both wonder what people were thinking and thank them for thinking it.

The movie of course is the underground and somewhat cultish hit The Monster Squad. Directed by Fred Dekker and written by Dekker and Shane Black. Yes, that Shane Black – I am surprised the movie isn’t based around christmas somehow. While it lacks the action, for obvious reasons, that the Lethal Weapons, Long Kiss Goodnight and Tony Stark 3 had; you can see that Blacks writing hasn’t really changed much in twenty six years. Dekker himself is also responsible for Robocop 3 and the Richard Greico film “If Looks Could Kill.” With what I know now of what was to come for these two in the years after, as this is Blacks Second film and Dekkers third, I wonder even as I watched it tonight – why the hell is it so damn entertaining?

I think the answer to that is a combination of things: Nostalgia, the magic of the 80’s and a love for the classic Monsters that are surprisngly treated as well as you can expect.

The story centers around Dracula (Duncan Regehr) who is hunting for a mystic gemstone that when destroyed will allow the creatures of the night to make their beautiful music all over the earth. Between him and success is an unlikely group of kids (none of whom you know now) who have a club called the Monster Squad. They have a wicked rad tree house I would have killed for and a love for horror films. No I assure you I was not in this film. Along the way they encounter and befriend Frankensteins Monster and face off with The Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Mummy and the Brides of Dracula.

As I get into the technical aspects of the film, let me be clear next to nothing of it holds up. There are a handful of Make-Ups and prosthetics that are still nice looking but they also are perfectly suited for the 80s. The CG is incredibly horrible and you can even see the wires on the sickeningly fake bats.

You leave the movie knowing a few things though, Silver Bullets are the only way to kill a werewolf, Frankenstein saying “Bogus” is awesome, and that wolfmans got nards.

TL;DR?

Ok I have an absolute love for this movie. It is raw nostalgia and I know it. I burned out a VHS tape of it as a kid. It has a tone and feel to it that bring me back to a happier time; but even as I watched it tonight I know it’s not a good movie. Yes, there were even tears at the end for one of the scenes that get me today. Despite what they say, some children can act.

This one is to be watched for Nostalgia or curiosity alone.
Tomorrow’s review will be an old vs new, but wants to take you to prom.

Darke Reviews | Trick R Treat (2009)

Posted by

4

Many of us were first introduced to this film through its musically powerful and highly visual trailer. You say, thats how most people find out about movies, trailers, Duh. That’s true, but this one appeared in front of the DVD release for the movie 300. It had fans of horror movies positively salivating in anticipation. Then, never came to be. Finally a DVD was released in 2009; two full years after the trailer was given to us.

The trailer itself was timeless in it’s own way with a near perfect execution of imagery and sound. It promised us a tale of vampires, classic halloween costumes not seen since the early 80s, ghosts, ghouls and jack o lanterns. Most of you will read this review two weeks prior to the day, this is intentional on my part. This gives you time to watch it and get in the halloween spirit.

Is it a Trick or Treat though?

As normal first we examine sole writer and director, Michael Dougherty. Prior to 2007 he had given us Bryan Singers screenplays for X2 and Superman Returns. In both cases he was one of several involved. Fault cannot be laid soley at his feet and it appears as he worked both films he is friends with Bryan Singer. On his solo outing, he finds a voice all his own. He comes at the movie in a way I haven’t seen since the Creepshow movies or perhaps even Heavy Metal. He interweaves the stories and connects them through touches of subtlety that can be overlooked. What he also shows is a true passion and love for the holiday (my favorite of course) and crafts a tale bringing superstition, horror, and tradition together.

We have the story of a modern woman (Leslie Bibb – the reporter from Ironman 1 and 2) who scoffs at tradition and her husband (Tahmoh Penikett – Battlestar Galactica)who respects it. This is the shortest of them, but has some meaning as it lays the ground work for what is to come. There is also the tail of poor, sweet, virginal Laurie (Anna Paquin – True Blood), with her big sister and friends off to a party hunting for dates as storybook characters. One cannot forget the lessons by principal Steven Wilkins (Dylan Baker – Law and Order) and his son Billy; reminding us of all the warnings we grew up with and some of the modern traditions of Halloween. We cannot have a movie like this without a ghost story filled with tricks, treats, myths, and even revenge. A story of children on a bus left to die long ago and children today who were lost to the darkness inside all people. Of course there is also the final story – the obligatory haunted house. The old man who scares everyone and yet has dark secrets of his own that bring the darkness to him in ways he can only imagine in nightmares.

Now for the month of October many of my reviews, contrary to the norm, have been spoilerific. This one will not be, unless you’ve figured out things from how I said them. If so more power to you.

From a technical standpoint, this movie is everything Halloween should be. Had Carpenter gotten what he wanted in 1978, this film would have fit into his goals for what the Halloween series was meant to be. The effects done by Patrick Tatopulos (Underworld) while not perfect are some of the best I’ve seen for transformations and certainly original. The movie stays practical nearly 100% of the time on all the effects and those that aren’t I can’t tell. It also does something I have not seen much of when it puts actual children in the roles of the very children who are in peril – which is unusual for Hollywood. It also wisely knows when to leave well enough alone and let your imagination and a creative foley artist do far more than any gore effect. A lesson to be learned by many so called horror directors.

TL;DR

The movie has frights, but not too much to handle. It has chills and thrills, twists and turns. This to me, is an absolute must see in the horror and halloween genres. It’s barely flawed and almost perfect in every execution.

It is THE movie to have for a Halloween completist.
Tomorrows review let us know that Mummy came to his house

Darke Reviews | Near Dark (1987)

Posted by

0

No, this is not the film hinted at yesterday. That film requires and deserves more effort and attention than I can provide tonight. Instead I review a slightly lighter fare that resides within the same vein. As I go into this review I need to make it clear that not once in this film is the word Vampire used. Also much like a movie I reviewed the other day it falls into the Vampire Western genre; of which there are more films than you would think.

The year is 1987, it has been one year since James Cameron released Aliens with surprising success as he turned the gothic / sci-fi / horror of Alien into a shoot-em up actioner with only the barest moments of horror. He recommends some of the stars of his cast to friend and eventual wife (and even more eventual ex-wife) Kathryn Bigelow for her new Western/Horror movie. She’s a rookie director with only one film under her belt and a far cry from the woman who would give us Point Break, Strange Days, The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. Yes that Kathryn Bigelow, the only female director to win a Best Director Academy award.

Not only did she direct the film, she wrote this one with Eric Red another novice but who had written The Hitcher, a rather creepy cautionary tale. They had a solid idea on the story they wanted to tell – Sex, Blood and Cowboys. They picked great locations and used music that had the right western beats and the edgier tone of 80s synth music. I should mention on the “Great locations” much of it was filmed not too far from me in Coolidge and Casa Grande – and it shows for those who have driven through there. You’ll recognize some of the landmarks.

The story is that of Caleb (Adrian Pasdar) a young farm hand who encounters the mysterious Mae (Jenny Wright). His attempts to woo the western beauty land him square with fangs in his neck and sunlight rising. Mae’s family Jesse (Lance Henrikson), Diamondback (Jenette Goldstein), Severen (Bill Paxton), and Homer (Joshua Miller) kidnap Caleb before the helpless eyes of his father and sister. The movie centers around Caleb trying to fight what he is, his romance with Mae and despite it all Mae’s family trying to adopt the unfortunate Caleb as one of their own.

The movie is deeply atmospheric using natural shadows and elements of the desert night to enhance the mood. There is a barren lonely quality that one can really only experience in the middle of nowhere that comes cross in how the movie is shot. Bigelow, even this early knew how to shoot and bring you in. Even though, ostensibly, the vampires are the antagonists, the “hunt” draws you in with its ingenuity and you find yourself cheering for them. When the climax comes you are torn between the needs of the stories final resolution and wanting the Vampires to win. It’s light on the gore and the FX are simple but effective through out.

While it was not successful in the box office due the bankruptcy of the studio that produced it the movie remains a cult hit amongst vampire aficionados. The original box art stood out for years as original and memorable to those who came across it. Sadly the current rights holders decided to “Twilightize” the cover art and so much of what made it interesting was lost.
TL;DR

For vampire and horror fans this is a must see film. It is an iconic movie in the vampire genre not to be missed for all of its elements which at the time were relatively new and original. It is a bit dated, so watch the eye rolls.
———

Tomorrows review knows that it’s tradition.

Darke Reviews | Blood and Chocolate

Posted by

2

Those that know me also know that I love Roleplaying Games, no not those kind, the table top RPG. My particular fancy and general expertise is those of White Wolf. Vampire the Masquerade is of course the top of the collection with quite literally every book. The same publisher also had a game line called Werewolf the Apocalypse. The point to this is that Blood and Chocolate is probably the closest Werewolf movie I have seen to date that conveys much of the right feel to a werewolf game. It is also up there on my list of top werewolf movies ever. Don’t worry American Werewolf in London, The Howling and Dog Soldiers are still above it when it comes to werewolf horror. We aren’t talking about those movies (today anyway), we are talking today about the movie adapation of Annette Curtis Klause Young Adult book.

As expected what do the book and movie have in common? How close of an adaptation is it? Well, having not read the story but reviewed it on Wiki – they have the title and a few characters in common. That said, writers Ehren Kruger (Transformers 2 & 3, Brothers Grimm, The Ring) and Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity 2, 3, 4) somehow translated and transformed the tale (tail?) of werewolves, humans and love completely from novel to screen. I think based on the summary it is an improvement. Perhaps that is German director Katja vonGarnier’s work with the material, the actors involved and of course a massive change in venue.

Moving from a story set in Maryland to one now set in the heart of Bucharest. It helps to have a city so rich in architecture, sculpture and enviornment that it is a character unto itself. All of the shots have a historic weight to them that brings depth no American locale could. They allow you believe that Werewolves have been among us since before the time of Magyar princes and have gone into hiding as men came to fear these creatures who could shift between wolf and man.

The film tells the story of Vivian (Agnes Bruckner) an american werewolf in Romania. Forced to live there after the death of her entire family she finds herself trapped in a life that she tries to escape through daily runs through the city. The local pack leader, who runs the city like a mob boss, Gabriel (Olivier Martinez) has his eyes on her for the position of his new mate despite a massive age difference and the fact that she has no interest in him. In one of her nights trying to escape her life and find solace in the city she comes across a young american starving artist by the name of Aiden (the yummy Hugh Dancy), who is in Romania studying the stories of the Loup Garou (Werewolves) for a comic book, er graphic novel he is writing. Much in the way of Romeo and Juliet these star crossed lovers do fall for each other and a Mercutio like character named Rafe (Bryan Dick) is sacrificed for the cause. Thankfully thats where the R&J similarities end. The two do find each other and are put through trials that test their love and their survivability.

The portrayl of werewolves in the movie is one of the few that brings the wolf dynamic into it as much as the human. There are many subtle and not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and behaviors that show the wolf as much a part of these people as the human is. It was a real pleasure to watch. While they do not have a hybrid form the transformation from human to wolf is made to be a beautiful, spiritual thing rather than a gory painful one. They loup garou do feel like a pack and it was quite refreshing to see.

The romance told over an indeterminate amount of time (a few days-weeks) but builds and is believable. The werewolves believe humans no longer know of their kind yet Aiden is able to research and find enough that he appears to have been told by poor Vivian. When finally faced with her, and her families, true nature he reacts as I believe a normal person would. He freaks the heck out. He actually tries to run away but is stopped not by her, but by the antagonists. When her harms her in the course of saving himself he finds he does love her and works to save her life as well. He also gets one of the most romantic lines ever in a supernatural romance film – “I’ve spent my entire life dreaming about you, what right do I have to wish you away now.” – Melt –
Effects and make up are ok and what fights there are look good. The music is rather catching and I have already gone on for a bit about the sets. The actors are solid with Hugh Dancy really showing many of them how its done. The story does have a few holes in it that you can drive a yugo through but holds together fairly well.

All in all for the TL;DR crowd?

Blood and Chocolate is an easily watchable and enjoyable supernatural romance. It isn’t horror, but is a good take on the werewolf mythos.

I can recommend this for anyone who likes a good romance, YA fan or supernatural fan. It does not have a lot of violence and next to no blood. The title is ridiculous but the end result is worth it.

Tomorrow’s review knows that the blood is the life.